About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
and women in uniform today as the pentagon threats pay cuts and deployments on hold, automatic cuts to the defense budget. and for america, he joins us now on the question of whether our troops are going to pay a price for washington's failure to make tough decisions. hi, pete. >> how are you doing, alisyn. >> alisyn: as you know, leon panetta is suggesting just 1% pay raise for our men and women in uniform that won't keep up with the cost of living there, what they'll have to pay going ahead next year. what do you think that would do for military families? >> well, it is a defacto pay cut and i think the military families are looking at the other side and also recently announced the civilian work force, they're unfreezing pay freezes that have happened for nonmerit paid government positions outside of the military so they're seeing salaries go up outside of the military and their salaries going down and you know what they say and i see, we see one gigantic political cop-out. that's what the sequestration debate has turned into. the president refuses to lead, no one will talk detail
it is and the republicans is to walk a fine line here. they're concerned what happens to the pentagon under sequestration because it goes across the board, they can't kill one program, every department, every subset has to feel the pain and so they're cautious on this point, but really, when you talk to them and you get them to say. and give them a choice between what the president is pitching and done in an unpleasant way they'd still rather have the cuts. >> he talks about, stu, look, we can avoid the cuts if we come up with a balanced program and all i'm asking for from the republicans is reasonable tax reform. that's it. we'll close a couple of loopholes, only the rich will feel that and the republicans are so married to the rich that they can't even save the lives of human beings and the jobs of first responders because they're so opposed to tax reform and the journal has questions about his definition of tax reform. your thoughts on that. >> yes, he has changed what tax reform means. tax reform, to the republicans, up until the last election. tax reform was, lower tax rates. get rid of some deducti
on the defense department, on the pentagon, and so these contractors have a lot to say about the overall size of our economy. the president having seen that is going to say look. we have these cuts that we agreed to go into place, but the economy can't handle it right now, so let's kick the can a little bit and do some of these same kinds of cuts, and they call them cuts, but they're not really cuts. sometimes they're reductions to future increases, sometimes they're taking into account things like not fighting in the iraq war any more, and accounting gimmickry to get to the next thing, and then we'll fall off that cliff when we get to it. >> we understand the president is going to highlight some bad things that will happen if this doesn't get resolved, things like kids getting kicked out of head start, people getting laid off from their jobs, cutting things like food safety inspectors so it won't be safe to eat. how much of that do you think the white house will talk about today because it sounds like it will go hand in hand that this is the house g.o.p.'s fault, you know, the house g.o.p. s
heading up the pentagon and obviously israel will want our help if they find themselves in an armed conflict with iran. what are the stakes for israel in seeing hagel? president obama is going to set that policy not hagel, right? but he's got some independent power. >> well, look, the question is, what kind of message are we sending the enemies of the united states which are also the enemies of all person liberal democracies, including our ally in the middle east on the front line on the war of islamist terrorism. last week hamas in its newspaper published an article, saying that a confirmation of hagel of secretary of defense would be in its favor and reduce the likelihood of the united states and iran getting nuclear weapons and reduce the united states supporting israel from defeating hamas and this is from a designated terrorist group and beyond that, is he an effective leader? does he have the credibility to reach across the aisle and do what he says he's going to do with the republicans, for example? >> i'm sure he would have rather not had the help from hamas. thank you for y
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)